o 


c 


Cbe  n\im\  Bulletin 

Published  Monthly  by  Miami  University 
And  Entered  at  th€  Post-office  at  Oxford,  O.,  as  Second  Class  Mail  Matter. 


Series  IV.  November,  1905. 


Number  9. 


The  Baccalaureate  Oration 

Delivered  on  the  Occasion  of  the 

Eighty-first  Annual  Commencement 
of  Miami  University 


at  Oxford,  Ohio 


The  Miami  Bulletin 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY  BY  MIAMI  UNIVERSITY  AND  ENTERED  AT  THE  POST-OFFICE 
AT  OXFORD,  OHIO,  AS  SECOND-CLASS  MAIL  MATTER. 


Series  IV. 


November,  1905. 


Number  9. 


The  Baccalaureate  Oration 

Delivered  on  the  Occasion  of  the 


Eighty-first  Annual  Commencement 
of  Miami  University 

at  Oxford,  Ohio, 

The  Fifteenth  Day  of  June,  Nineteen  Hundred  and  Five, 


By  His  Excellency 

The  Honorable  William  Howard  Taft,  LL.D. 
Secretary  of  War. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/baccalaureateoraOOtaft 


The  Baccalaureate  Oration 

The  Hon.  William  Howard  Taft,  LL.D. 


Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  of  Miami  University: 

I count  it  a great  honor  and  opportunity  to  deliver  the  Com- 
mencement Address  at  this  venerable  institution  of  learning.  I 
felicitate  myself  much  also  at  being  able  to  be  present  on  the  sixtieth 
anniversary  of  the  graduation  of  the  president  of  your  board  of 
trustees,  Mr.  John  W.  Herron,  whose  assocation  with  this  univer- 
sity as  a student,  as  an  alumnus  and  as  a trustee,  has  been  one  of  the 
great  joys  of  his  long,  distinguished  and  useful  life. 

Miami  University,  growing  as  it  did  out  of  the  impulse  to  edu- 
cation and  higher  learning  which  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was 
intended  to  give,  is  a type  of  that  class  of  colleges  throughout  Ohio 
and  the  West  which  it  has  been  the  custom  of  those  who  are  impa- 
tient with  the  day  of  small  things  to  decry  on  the  ground  that  if  all 
of  their  class  were  united  in  one  great  institution  of  learning  it 
would  result  in  a university  of  great  means,  of  commanding  influ- 
ence, and  of  the  widest  usefulness.  To  this  complaint,  it  seems  to 
me,  Mr.  Bryce  in  his  ’’American  Commonwealth”  makes  complete 
answer  when  he  says : 

“They  set  learning  in  a visible  form,  plain,  indeed, 
and  humble,  but  dignified  even  in  her  humility,  before  the 
eyes  of  a rustic  people,  in  whom  the  love  of  knowledge, 
naturally  strong,  might  never  break  from  the  bud  into  the 
flower,  but  for  the  care  of  some  zealous  gardener.  They 
give  the  chance  of  rising  in  some  intellectual  walk  of  life 
to  many  a strong  and  earnest  nature,  who  might  otherwise 
have  remained  an  artisan  or  storekeeper,  and  perhaps  failed 
in  those  avocations.  * * * some  of  these  smaller 

Western  colleges  one  finds  today,  men  of  great  ability  and 
great  attainments,  one  finds  students  who  are  receiving 
an  education  quite  as  thorough,  though  not  always  as  wide, 
as  the  best  Eastern  universities  can  give.  * * * Q^e 

who  recalls  the  history  of  the  West  during  the  last  fifty 


3 


years,  and  bears  in  mind  the  tremendous  rush  of  ability 
and  energy  towards  a purely  rrtaterial  development,  which 
has  marked  its  people,  will  feel  that  this  uncontrolled  free- 
dom of  teaching,  this  multiplication  of  small  institutions, 
have  done  for  the  country  a work  which  a few  state-regu- 
lated universities  might  have  failed  to  do.” 

An  historian  of  Miami  University  advises  us  that  in  the  earlier 
days  of  its  history  it  was  frequently  referred  to  as  “The  Yale  of  the 
West”,  because  of  the  high  rank  it  took  immediately  after  its  open- 
ing in  1824  as  an  institution  of  learning,  and  because  of  the  promi- 
nence reached  by  its  graduates  in  public  life.  There  is  something 
of  an  individual  and  peculiar  character  in  the  atmosphere  of  certain 
colleges  which  has  an  effect  upon  the  lives  of  those  who  are  edu- 
cated there,  and  directs  them  in  a course  which  leads  on  to  promi- 
nence and  usefulness  in  political  and  other  walks  of  life.  The  four 
years  between  eighteen  and  twenty-two,  are  four  of  the  most  import- 
ant years  in  the  framing  of  man’s  character  and  when  not  only  the 
influence  of  the  faculty  but  the  public  opinion  of  the  student  com- 
munity all  make  for  hard  work,  sincerity  of  purpose,  self-reliance 
and  thoroughness,  and  the  highest  ambitions,  we  can  be  sure  that 
this  does  have  an  effect  upon  the  after  life  of  the  boys  who  make  up 
the  community  and  are  subjected  to  the  influence  of  its  ideals. 

The  boys  who  graduated  here,  were  in  the  beginning  set  right 
as  to  the  real  things  of  life  and  those  which  go  to  make  up  its  suc- 
cesses. They  were  filled  with  no  hopes  that  anything  could  be  won 
except  by  effort.  They  were  led  by  no  conventional  ideas  to  suppose 
that  there  was  a royal  road  in  the  professions,  in  business  or  in  poli- 
tics. They  left  their  Alma  Mater  with  the  consciousness  that  no 
work  which  was  honorable  was  beneath  them,  and  that  success  was 
impossible  without  a willingness  to  accept  any  burden  which  circum- 
stances might  cast  upon  them.  The  spirit  of  debate,  cultivated  as 
it  was  in  these  academic  groves,  fitted  men  for  political,  forensic 
and  pulpit  discussion  and  oratory,  and  it  is  no  wonder  as  we  look 
back  upon  the  honor  roll  of  the  graduates  of  this  university,  that  we 
find  three  of  the  distinguished  War  Governors,  Yates,  Morton  and 
Dennison,  among  its  graduates,  or  that  we  find  so  many  Represen- 
tatives and  Senators  in  Congress  who  hail  Miami  as  their  Alma 
Mater  and  rejoice  in  expressions  of  gratitude  toward  her  and  her 
early  influences.  Benjamin  Harrison,  President  of  the  United 
States,  a son  of  Miami  and  one  of  the  ablest  men  of  the  country. 


4 


showed  in  the  sturdiness  of  his  character,  in  his  thoroughness,  pro- 
found learning  and  able  reasoning  as  a lawyer,  and  in  his  pure, 
simple  style  of  speaking  and  writing,  the  advantage  of  an  education 
in  a college  in  which  were  encouraged  force  and  eloquence  and  Eng- 
lish, pure  and  undefiled. 

I invite  your  attention  this  morning  to  a consideration  of  some 
of  the  important  issues  of  the  day  presented  to  the  American  people. 
It  is  not  a bad  idea  every  little  while,  as  mariners  do  upon  their 
course,  to  take  an  observation  and  to  look  back  upon  the  path  we 
have  traveled,  and  to  consider,  so  far  as  we  may,  the  obstacles  that 
lie  before  us.  Of  course,  in  the  limit  of  an  hour’s  address  the  con- 
sideration which  may  be  given  to  each  living  question,  must  be  most 
cursory  and  yet,  sometimes,  a rapid  resume  is  conducive  to  a proper 
sense  of  proportion. 

This  is  a great  country.  Its  material  growth  in  the  last 
forty  years,  exceeds  anything  in  the  history  of  the  world.  The 
development  of  invention,  of  manufactories  and  the  organization 
of  tremendous  industrial  and  railroad  enterprises  are  phenomena 
not  before  seen.  The  inventive  genius  of  the  American,  applied  first 
to  mechanics  and  machinery,  was  soon  after  turned  to  the  union  and 
organization  of  men  and  capital,  all  devised  for  the  purpose  of 
reducing  the  cost  of  producing  the  necessitites  or  the  luxuries  of 
modern  civilization.  The  aggregation  of  capital,  and  of  plants, 
and  of  factories  under  one  head,  the  union  of  railroads  in  great 
trunk  lines,  spanning  the  country,  were  as  inevitable  developments 
of  this  great  material  progress  as  the  assembling  of  the  parts  of  a 
machine  for  an  easier  manufacture  than  that  by  hand.  It  has  been 
productive  of  the  greatest  good.  It  has  brought  comfort  into  the 
houses  and  the  lives  of  the  poor  and  it  has  made  for  them  what  were 
luxuries,  necessities.  The  general  cost  of  living  may  have  increased, 
but  so  has  the  general  ease  with  which  life  is  lived  increased,  and 
in  the  pursuit  of  happiness  therefore  by  the  whole  people,  the  steps 
that  have  been  taken  in  the  last  fifty  years,  exceed  those  of  many 
previous  centuries.  The  enormous  expansion  of  business  in  every 
conceivable  direction,  the  gigantic  risks  assumed  in  the  investments 
of  capital  to  accomplish  results  unknown  or  unforseen  save  by  the 
daring  projectors  of  new  enterprises,  have  only  been  possible  because 
of  the  freedom  which  the  laws  of  this  country  have  afforded  to  the 
individual,  and  the  certainty  he  has  had  that  he  would  be  able  to 
enjoy  unmolested,  the  rewards  of  his  industry, his  integrity  and  his 


5 


business  courage.  During,  however,  this  rapid  increase  in  capital, 
there  was  also  a rapid  increase  in  competition,  until  it  has  almost 
seemed  that  competition  instead  of  being  the  life  ot  trade,  was  likely 
to  kill  it.  To  protect  themselves,  merchants  combined  to  prevent 
competition,  and  through  the  desire  to  suppress  its  evils,  have  come 
certain  abuses  in  the  industrial  world  which  are  comprehended  under 
the  term;  generally,  “unfair  trade”.  These  include  secret  railway 
rebates,  and  discriminations,  monopolies  in  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  articles  of  common  sale,  boycotts,  unlawful  strikes,  and  lock' 
outs,  and  other  unlawful  restraints  of  trade.  These  evils  are  really 
an  accompaniment  difficult  to  escape  in  our  enormous  business 
expansion.  Many  evils,  I am  convinced,  which  now  seem  threaten- 
ing will  cure  themselves.  Others  may  need  greater  governmental 
restraint  than  has  thus  far  been  given,  but  whatever  action  is  taken, 
it  should  always  be  moderate  in  the  restriction  of  individual  energy, 
resourcefulness  and  thrift.  Among  the  instances  of  unfair  trade  I 
have  given,  are  the  evils  due  to  the  organization  of  capital  and  the 
evils  due  to  the  organization  of  labor.  The  millenium  is  not  at 
hand,  and  we  may  expect  to  have  with  us  all  our  lives,  the  friction 
between  labor  and  capital,  which  experience  seems  to  show  it  is 
impossible  wholly  to  dispense  with.  All  that  the  public  can  hope 
to  do  is  to  suppress  disorder  with  an  iron  hand,  and  by  affording 
opportunities  for  voluntary  compromise  and  conciliation,  to  make 
the  controversies  which  are  suicidal,  both  for  capital  and  labor,  of 
as  little  extent  and  duration  as  possible.  The  evils  of  monopoly, 
that  is  of  the  suppression  of  competition  and  the  exercise  of  a cer- 
tain duress  in  the  matter  of  prices  and  in  the  matter  of  doing  busi- 
ness, which  great  corporations  are  now  able  to  bring  to  bear  upon 
the  wholesale  and  retail  trade,  as  well  as  the  illegal  boycotts  by  great 
labor  unions,  can  ultimately  be  met  by  statutes  drawn  to  suit  the 
many  faced  devices  for  an  undue  use  of  the  power  which  accumu- 
lated wealth  and  resources  on  the  one  hand,  or  organized  numbers 
on  the  other,  give.  I do  not  intend  here  to  consider  these  subjects 
which  are  of  the  utmost  importance,  but  which  call  for  such  special 
discussion  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  do  them  justice,  in  an  address 
like  this. 

One  phase  of  this  enormous  material  development  and  the 
enriching  of  many  of  our  fellow  citizens,  which  I hope  the  next 
generation  will  show,  is  the  creation  of  a class  of  men  not  dependent 
upon  their  own  efforts  for  their  livelihood,  who  can  devote  more 


6 


and  more  of  their  time  to  public  and  political  matters.  Every  man 
who  has  a competence  and  who  has  in  the  slightest  degree  a capacity 
for  dealing  with  public  affairs  and  for  influencing  his  fellow  citizens 
to  better  things,  is  charged  with  a sacred  trust  of  devoting  all  the 
time  he  can  to  the  betterment  of  the  government  in  which  he  lives. 
Now  I am  sure  that  class  is  largely  on  the  increase,  and  as  the 
great  fortunes  which  have  been  accumulated  by  the  recent  increase 
in  wealth,  shall  be  distributed  by  the  death  of  their  present  owners 
and  divided  among  the  heirs,  we  may  expect  to  find  a great  number 
of  those  thus  enriched,  free  from  the  feverish  desire  to  accumulate 
additional  wealth,  content  to  live  upon  what  they  have,  and  spurred 
on  to  a higher  and  nobler  ambition  to  aid  their  fellow  men.  I 
would  not  minimize  the  importance  of  a motive  for  acquisition  and 
accumulation  in  many  members  of  every  community,  that  expects 
to  progress  toward  greater  material  prosperity,  and  even  intellectual 
development,  but  there  is  no  present  danger  that  the  motive  for 
acquisition  will  become  so  weak  among  our  people  as  to  injure  this 
country’s  progress.  On  the  contrary,  it  may  well  give  way  in  the 
minds  and  hearts  of  many  of  our  well-to-do  citizens  to  a more 
commendable  ambition,  to  take  part  in  the  government  of  the 
country  and  to  assist  either  in  the  precinct,  the  ward,  the  county,  the 
state  or  the  United  States,  to  make  the  government  the  ideal  demo- 
cratic government  which  it  was  the  purpose  of  our  forefathers  to 
found. 

Another  encouraging  feature  of  the  present  increase  of  wealth, 
is  that  a large  proportion  of  this  increase  has  been  in  the  South,  a 
part  of  our  country  which  heretofore  has  been  largely  agricultural 
and  poor.  The  change  in  the  material  conditions  in  the  South,  in 
spite  of  the  political  difficulties  that  certainly  are  there,  is  creating 
a better  state  of  things  with  reference  to  the  racial  question.  The 
work  of  Booker  Washington  in  teaching  his  people  how  to  use  tools 
instead  of  giving  them  a superficial  university  education  which  they 
cannot  use,  added  to  the  industrial  demand  for  skilled  labor  will,  I 
am  certain,  put  the  negro  population  in  a better  condition  materially, 
and  when  that  is  brought  about,  their  spiritual  and  intellectual  uplift- 
ing is  much  easier.  The  Southern  states  are  engaged  in  adopting 
constitutions  which  seem  intended  to  exclude  the  negro  from  the 
ballot,  in  fact  without  infringing  the  fifteenth  Amendment  so  palpa- 
bly, as  to  lead  to  their  annulment  by  the  supreme  court.  I am  hop- 
ing earnestly  that  experiments  of  this  sort  will  fail ; but  if  they  will 


7 


lead  to  a result  in  which  the  laws  shall  exclude  ignorant  whites  and 
blacks  equally  from  the  ballot,  then  no  one  can  quarrel  with  the 
procedure  which  will  be  square  and  honest. 

A new  set  of  problems  are  presenting  themselves  for  solution 
in  our  foreign  policy.  The  enormous  material  expansion  of  this 
country,  accompanied  by  the  historical  and  present  evidence  of  its 
capacity  to  carry  on  to  successful  issue  a costly  war,  and  the  peculiar 
position  which  we  hold  among  the  powers  of  the  earth  as  the  one 
which  is  not  desirous  of  acquiring  additional  territory,  have 
given  our  nation  a unique  position  of  influence  for  good  throughout 
the  world.  This  is  due  also  to  its  having  assumed  control  of  the 
Philippine  Islands,  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  of  Porto  Rico,  and 
its  undertaking  to  build  the  Panama  Canal.  These  measures  have 
given  it  a standing  among  the  nations  beyond  that  which  could  be 
accorded  by  them  to  one,  which  had  no  insular  possessions  and  con- 
fined itself  within  the  seas.  The  powerful  influence  which  it  has 
exerted  to  bring  about  peace  between  the  Russian  and  Japanese 
nations,  is  itself  an  evidence.  President  Roosevelt  has  felt  justified 
in  speaking  to  the  belligerents  a message  from  the  world,  that  the 
time  has  come  for  a settlement  by  peaceful  means  of  the  controver- 
sies between  the  two  nations  and  for  an  ending  of  the  awful  loss  of 
life  and  property  and  'of  the  woeful  disturbance  of  business  that  a 
continuance  of  the  war  entails.  The  personality  of  the  president 
has  had  much  to  do  with  the  willingness  of  the  powers  to  allow  him 
to  intervene.  Confidence  in  his  impartiality  and  integrity  have 
doubtless  aided  our  national  prestige  in  securing  this  end  devoutly 
to  be  wished. 

But  while  we  are  pluming  ourselves  on  having  advanced  far 
towards  the  ideal  of  a civilized  nation,  it  is  well  for  us  to  consider 
some  other  issues  in  respect  to  which  we  have  taken  a position  whfch 
is  not  only  wrong  in  principle,  unjust  in  operation,  but  most  inexpe- 
dient and  unwise  in  policy.  After  years  of  controversy  with  the 
Chinese  Empire  over  the  subject,  in  some  of  which  we  cannot  escape 
the  charge  of  having  broken  a Chinese  treaty  rights  by  our  legisla- 
tion, we  reached  an  agreement  with  the  representatives  of  the  Middle 
Kingdom  by  which  they  agreed  not  to  object  to  our  exclusion  from 
this  country  of  the  coolie  labor  of  China.  It  would  seem  that  we 
may  properly  object  to  the  introduction  into  this  country  of  laborers 
who  do  not  become  a part  of  the  real  population  of  the  country. 


8 


who  refuse  to  amalgamate  and  to  stake  their  all  as  citizens  of  this 
Republic,  and  whose  habits  and  views  of  life  are  so  much  at  vari- 
ance with  those  of  our  civilization  as  to  make  it  impossible  for  them 
to  ever  become  a useful  and  intelligent  part  in  this  self-governing 
community.  The  Chinese  Government  seems  willing  to  concede 
this,  but  the  extreme  feeling  on  this  subject  on  the  part  of  some  of 
our  people,  has  led  to  a severity  in  the  statute  and  the  enforcement 
of  it  which  the  Chinese  Government  feels,  and  justly  feels,  justifies  it 
in  asking  for  a change.  It  appears  that  in  the  effort  to  catch  in  the 
meshes  of  the  law  every  coolie  laborer  attempting  illegally  to  enter 
the  country,  we  necessarily  expose  to  danger  of  contumely,  insult, 
arrest  and  discomfort  the  merchants  and  students  of  China,  who 
have  a right  to  come  to  this  country  under  our  treaties,  and  who 
come  here  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a bond  of  commercial 
union  between  this  country  and  China,  or  of  taking  from  this 
country,  familiarity  with  the  best  of  our  institutions  to  aid  the  older 
but  retarded  civilization  of  the  Chinese  Empire.  Is  it  just' that  for 
the  purpose  of  excluding  or  preventing  perhaps  one  hundred 
Chinese  coolies  from  slipping  into  this  country  against  the  law,  we 
should  subject  an  equal  number  of  Chinese  merchants  and  students 
of  higher  character  to  an  examination  of  such  an  inquisitorial, 
humiliating,  insulting,  and  physically  uncomfortable  character  as 
to  discourage  altogether  the  coming  of  merchants  and  students? 
Ever  since  the  Boxer  war,  when  America  was  able  to  show  her 
friendship  for  China  and  her  disinterestedness  and  freedom  from  the 
land-grabbing  spirit  of  some  other  nations,  China  has  regarded  the 
United  States  as  her  best  friend.  One  of  the  great  commercial 
prizes  of  the  world  is  the  trade  with  the  four  hundred  million 
Chinese.  Ought  we  to  throw  away  the  advantage  which  we  have 
by  reason  of  Chinese  natural  friendship  for  us  and  continue  to 
enforce  an  unjustly  severe  law,  and  thus  create  in  the  Chinese  mind 
a disposition  to  boycott  American  trade  and  to  drive  our  merchants 
from  Chinese  shores,  simply  because  we  are  afraid  that  we  may  for 
the  time  lose  the  approval  of  certain  unreasonable  and  extreme  pop- 
ular leaders  of  California  and  other  coast  states?  Does  the  question 
not  answer  itself?  Is  it  not  the  duty  of  members  of  Congress  and 
of  the  executive  to  disregard  the  unreasonable  demands  of  a portion 
of  the  community  deeply  prejudiced  upon  this  subject  in  the  far 
West,  and  insist  on  extending  justice  and  courtesy  to  a people  from 
whom  we  are  deriving  and  are  likely  to  derive  such  immense  benefit 


9 


in  the  way  of  international  trade?  We  must  continue  to  keep  out 
the  coolies,  the  laborers ; but  we  should  give  the  freest  possible  entry 
to  merchants,  travelers  and  students,  and  treat  them  with  all  cour- 
tesy and  consideration. 

Another  issue  which  is  before  us  and  is  likely  to  continue  to  be 
before  us,  is  the  attitude  which  we  shall  occupy  with  reference  to 
the  Monroe  Doctrine.  That  doctrine  has  been  accepted  apparently 
by  both  parties,  and  therefore  by  nearly  all  the  people,  as  one  which 
we  should  enforce  at  the  cost  even  of  peace.  It  is  that  no  European 
power  shall  be  permitted  to  colonize,  or  to  overturn  the  government 
of,  and  take  possession  of,  any  territory  in  the  Western  hemisphere. 
Now  in  the  Western  hemisphere,  there  are  some  rather  weak  repub- 
lics. They  have  contracted  debts  with  European  powers  and  with 
subjects  of  European  powers,  and  then  have  repudiated  and  refused 
to  pay  them.  Such  debts  it  has  not  been  the  habit  of  the  United 
States  to  attempt  to  enforce  by  war  or  threats  of  war  against  the 
government  owing  them,  but  the  European  governments  have 
insisted  that  when  all  other  recourse  is  gone,  they  must  be  given  an 
opportunity  by  force  of  arms  to  give  a lesson  in  honesty  to  the 
offending  nation  and  to  seize  its  customs  houses  and  collect  their 
debts.  This  has  been  done  so  frequently  as  to  become  a practice, 
and  the  question  which  arises  is  how  far  the  United  States  should 
intervene  in  forcible  proceedings  like  this,  to  prevent  a mere  seizure 
for  temporary  purposes  from  being  lengthened  out  into  a more  or 
less  permanent  occupancy  or  control  which  will  be  a violation  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine.  Under  the  influence  of  the  doctrine,  the  people 
of  the  United  States  have  become  exceedingly  sensitive  whenever 
a European  government  sends  a force  to  threaten  one  of  the  South 
American  or  Central  American  republics,  and  this  Government  has 
always  felt  called  upon  to  use  its  good  offices  to  prevent  a complete 
destruction  of  the  existing  government.  The  result  has  been  that 
the  European  governments  have  been  disposed  to  throw  upon  the 
United  States  more  or  less  responsibility  for  the  good  behavior  of 
the  Central  American  and  South  American  republics.  They  have 
not  specifically  dissented  from  the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  the  United 
States  has  a number  of  times  announced  it,  but  they  have  said  that 
“If  you  propose  to  introduce  a protectorate  over  these  republics  to 
the  extent  of  preventing  our  taking  them  under  our  control  in  order 
to  collect  a debt,  then  we  must  look  to  you  as  the  guardian  or  pro- 
tector of  these  countries  and  insist  that  you  shall  require  these 


lO 


republics  to  keep  their  houses  in  order,  and  shall  make  provision  for 
the  payment  of  their  just  debts  lawfully  contracted  by  their  gov- 
ernments.” It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  not  an  extension,  but  a mere 
corollary  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  involved  in  the  assumption  of 
our  pro  tanto  protectorate  over  our  sisters  of  Central  and  Soutl\ 
America. 

We  are  just  now  engaged  in  lending  a helping  hand  to  the 
Republic  of  Santo  Domingo.  That  Republic  has  contracted  a large 
amount  of  debt  which  it  will  not  be  able  to  pay  for  many  years.  It 
is  quite  possible  that  part  of  this  debt  is  unjust,  and  swelled  beyond 
that  which  would  appear  just,  upon  arbitration.  If  so,  it  ought 
to  be  cut  down,  and  this,  whether  it  is  held  by  Europeans  or  Ameri- 
cans. Appeal  is  made  to  the  United  States  to  act  as  a receiver  of 
the  income  of  the  Island,  to  turn  over  enough  funds  to  run  the  gov- 
ernment, or  forty-five  per  cent  of  the  total  income,  and  then  to  dis- 
burse the  remaining  fifty-five  per  cent  as  the  rights  of  creditors 
should  appear.  Provisions  of  this  tenor  are  contained  in  the  treaty 
presented  to  the  Senate  for  confirmation.  Discussion  in  the  Senate 
prevented  confirmation  at  the  last  term  and  now  the  question  stands 
open  for  decision  during  the  next  session  of  the  Senate.  In  the 
meantime,  in  order  to  preserve  the  status  quo  at  the  time  the  treaty 
was  made,  President  Morales  has  invited  President  Roosevelt  to 
nominate  to  him,  Americans  whom  he  may  safely  put  in  charge  of  the 
customs  houses,  and  to  name  an  American  bank  in  which  the  surplus 
revenues  may  be  safely  deposited  to  await  the  action  of  the  Senate, 
and  then  to  be  distributed  as  either  the  treaty  shall  require,  or  if  it 
be  not  confirmed,  then  as  Santo  Domingo  shall  require.  Some  ques- 
tion has  been  made  of  the  power  of  the  President  in  the  absence  of 
agreement  of  the  Senate  to  acquiesce  in  such  an  arrangement.  The 
arrangement  is  not  a treaty  and  cannot  be  called  so.  On  the  part 
of  the  United  States,  it  is  assuming  no  obligation  to  do  anything ; it 
is  only  rendering  assistance  to  a weaker  sister  to  maintain  a status 
quo,  existing  at  the  time  of  the  signing  of  the  treaty,  until  it  shall 
be  determined  whether  the  treaty  can  be  confirmed  or  not.  The 
United  States  Government  is  not  made  to  agree  to  anything,  and 
it  is  not  itself  even  a trustee  by  virtue  of  what  it  has  done.  It  has 
simply  nominated  certain  respectable  tax  collectors  who  are  bonded 
tax  collectors  and  agents,  not  of  the  United  States,  not  of  a syndi- 
cate of  bond-holders,  not  for  the  European  nations  holding  bonds, 
but  of  the  Santo  Domingan  Government.  I do  not  think  that  even 


the  most  jealous  of  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  Senate  will 
be  heard  to  object  to  this  modus  vivendi  or  status  quo  preserved 
until  the  Senate  shall  have  had  further  time  to  consider  the  treaty. 

The  new  questions  put  upon  our  Government  for  solution  by 
the  acquisition  of  Spanish  territory  through  the  Spanish  war,  were 
many  and  delicate,  and  we  are  not  in  a position  now  to  say  with 
certainty  how  successful  our  management  of  Porto  Rico  and  the 
Philippines  is.  It  was  inevitable  that  the  change  from  the  control 
by  Spanish  Government  to  that  of  the  American  Government, 
would  be  so  radical  in  every  respect,  that  however  wise  the  new 
government,  and  however  defective  the  old,  the  transition  could  only 
be  accomplished  after  much  friction  between  the  old  methods  and  the 
new,  and  with  much  disappointment  that  the  new  methods  did  not 
at  once  work  a miracle  of  improvement.  This,  taken  with  disas- 
ters which  no  man  could  foresee  or  prevent,  has  interfered  with  the 
immediate  success  of  our  colonial  policy.  In  Porto  Rico  a tornado 
destroyed  the  coffee  crop,  not  only  of  one  year  but  of  many  years, 
because  by  its  violence  the  trees  were  entirely  destroyed. 

In  the  Philippines  by  the  spread  of  the  rhinderpest,  or  cattle 
plague,  more  than  eighty  per  cent  of  all  the  draft  cattle  of  the 
islands  were  carried  away,  and  as  the  cultivation  of  rice  and  sugar 
were  especially  dependent  on  the  use  of  cattle,  these  industries  were 
seriously  interfered  with  and  almost  a famine  was  produced 
throughout  the  entire  archipelago.  Both  countries  are  now  gradu- 
ally recovering  from  these  blows  for  which  the  American  Govern- 
ment is  no  more  responsible  than  the  Spanish.  The  political 
changes  which  have  been  wrought  by  the  transfer  of  sovereignty 
and  the  introduction  of  civil  liberty,  as  it  is  understood  in  Anglo- 
Saxon  countries,  are  gradually  impressing  themselves  upon  the 
people.  Civil  freedom  and  the  opportunity  for  free  education, 
which  I am  glad  to  say  in  the  Philippines  especially  is  eagerly  seized, 
are  certain  in  the  next  decade  to  make  a decided  change  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  people.  The  island  of  Porto  Rico  contains  a million 
inhabitants,  is  much  more  thickly  settled  than  the  Philippines,  and 
far  more  advanced  in  agriculture.  The  government  which  has  been 
furnished  is  the  territorial  government  strictly  speaking  with  an 
American  executive,  a majority  of  Americans  in  the  executive  coun- 
cil and  a representative  assembly  as  the  second  chamber.  Porto  Rico 
has  been  taken  within  the  tariff  wall  and  its  sugar  industry  is  now 
beginning  to  feel  the  strong  impetus  which  an  immense  market  like 


12 


that  of  the  United  States  can  afford  to  the  sugar  planters  of  this 
island.  While  there  is  in  the  somewhat  mercurial  disposition  of  the 
Latin-American  as  we  find  him  in  Porto  Rico,  a disposition  to  criti- 
cise the  present  as  compared  with  the  past,  and  more  especially  as 
compared  with  the  past  hopes,  for  the  present  there  is  no  real  or  seri- 
ous disaffection  among  the  people  of  the  island  which  ought  to  give 
us  particular  concern.  The  introduction  of  trial  by  jury  into  the  code 
of  legal  procedure  in  the  island  has  not  been  attended  with  great  suc- 
cess, and  this  because  it  has  definitely  shown  that  the  people  of 
the  islands  are  not  prepared  to  assume  the  judicial  and  impartial  atti- 
tude of  mind  toward  an  issue  presented,  which  is  necessary  to  make 
the  jury  system  a success.  They  have  not  as  yet  acquired  that  sense  of 
responsibility  to  society  and  the  government  of  which  in  theory  they 
are  a part,  to  prevent  their  feeling  any  emotion  and  any  bias  which 
the  circumstances  and  the  eloquence  of  counsel  may  present  and  en- 
courage. The  giving  to  them  of  trial  by  jury  is  an  instance  of  a 
common  error  of  the  American  people,  in  supposing  that  institu- 
tions of  Government  which  have  been  found  to  work  well  with 
Americans,  and  so  well  as  to  be  preserved  by  constitutional  man- 
date in  the  laws  of  the  country,  should  be  put  into  immediate  use 
among  a people  whose  history  is  widely  different  and  whose  edu- 
cation in  the  responsibility  of  self-government  has  been  entirely  lack- 
ing. Liberty  regulated  by  law  conduces  most  to  the  pursuit  of 
human  happiness,  and  therefore  is,  or  should  be,  the  object  of  all 
government,  but  the  extent  of  the  regulation,  the  extent  of  the 
limitation,  upon  liberty  needed  to  prevent  its  degenerating  into 
license,  must  differ  widely  with  the  differing  characteristics  of  the 
peoples  to  whom  the  government  is  to  be  applied  and  to  whom  the 
liberty  is  to  be  extended.  There  are  different  stages  in  the  progress 
of  the  people  towards  self-government.  There  is  a stage  when  the 
exercise  of  self-government  at  all  is  impossible  and  leads  only  to 
anarchy.  There  is  a stage  after  some  popular  education  in  which 
partial  self-government  is  essential  at  a part  of  the  education  leading 
up  to  complete  self-government.  Indeed  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive of  a people  being  thrown  from  complete  despotism  into  com- 
plete and  satisfactory  self-government.  The  process  must  be  grad- 
ual. Then,  too,  we  must  not  fail  in  practice  to  make  the  distinction 
between  civil  liberty  and  political  self-control.  A people  who  do 
not  exercise  self-government  and  political  self-control  may  never- 
theless have  properly  extended  to  them  civil  liberty,  because  the 


13 


enjoyment  of  civil  liberty  entails  much  less  responsibility  upon  the 
person  enjoying  it  than  political  self-control  and  government.  Civil 
liberty  is  the  first  step  in  training  a people  to  self-government,  but 
it  is  far  from  being  the  same  thing,  as  loose  thinkers  and  speakers 
upon  political  subjects  are  apt  to  assume.  With  us  neither  women 
nor  children  enjoy  any  political  control.  They  cannot  be  said  to 
be  of  the  self-governing  element  of  the  community,  and  yet  they 
each  one  enjoy  quite  as  great  civil  liberty  as  a man.  So,  too,  in 
those  communities  where  there  are  qualifications  for  the  electors, 
those  who  are  not  qualified  electors,  enjoy  civil  liberty  none  the  less, 
but  are  denied*  the  power  of  political  control.  It  is  necessary  for 
us  in  establishing  a government  in  a new  country  where  the  people 
have  not  received  the  historical  experience  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race, 
and  have  not  had  hammered  into  them  the  sense  of  responsibility  of 
self-government,  that  we  should  carry  clearly  in  mind  the  distinc- 
tions that  I have  been  trying  to  make,  in  order  that  we  should  not 
force  upon  people  unfitted  therefor,  political  control,  with  which 
they  cannot  improve  themselves,  but  only  damage  the  government 
of  which  they  are  themselves  thus  made  a part. 

What  I have  said  in  respect  to  Porto  Rico  is,  of  course,  applica- 
ble to  the  Philippines,  where  the  government  is  less  advanced  toward 
proper  self-government  than  it  is  in  Porto  Rico.  The  census  has 
now  been  taken  of  the  Islands.  It  was  published  in  April,  and  two 
years  from  that  date,  a popular  assembly  of  all  the  Christian  Filipinos 
of  not  less  than  fifty  representatives  and  not  more  than  one  hunrded, 
will  become  a co-ordinate  branch  of  the  legislature  of  the  islands, 
with  the  present  commission  as  the  other  chamber.  The  electorate 
in  the  Philippine  Islands  is  limited  by  educational  qualifications,  so 
that  probably  not  more  than  twenty  per  cent  of  adult  males  are 
entitled  to  vote.  On  that  basis  municipal  and  provincial  govern- 
ments, partially  autonomous,  were  established  in  inany  provinces. 
In  some  few  of  these  provinces,  the  governments  proved  failures 
because  the  people  were  not  equal  to  the  exercise  of  the  small  meas- 
ure of  self-government  extended,  and  had  to  be  governed  directly 
from  the  central  government.  In  a great  majority  of  cases  how- 
ever, the  local  governments  have  proved  to  be  fairly  successful 
and  efficient,  not,  indeed,  as  efficient  as  they  would  be,  were  they 
officered  by  competent  Americans,  but  much  more  efficient  for  the 
education  of  the  people  taking  part  in  the  government.  In  other 
words,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  our  efforts  to  give  a good 


14 


government  to  the  Philippines  as  well  as  to  our  other  dependencies, 
we  are  charged  with  the  responsibility,  not  of  making  a government 
in  a permanent  form  which  will  secure  good  government  to  the  peo- 
ple over  whom  it  is  placed,  but  we  are  also  charged  with  the  duty 
of  framing  a government  which  is  not  permanent,  but  progressive, 
and  progressive  in  the  sense  that  the  people  who  are  governed  shall, 
by  the  measures  taken  by  that  government  and  its  character,  become 
more  and  more  prepared  to  assume  full  political  self-government. 
In  this  respect  our  experiment  in  colonial  government  diflfers 
entirely  from  that  taken  by  any  other  government  in  the  civilized 
world,  in  respect  of  alien  and  tropical  races,  and  hence  it  is  that  the 
criticisms,  which  have  been  heaped  upon  our  experiments  in  the 
Philippines  and  in  Porto  Rico,  are  so  lacking  in  the  quality  of  fair^ 
ness.  The  critics  generally  are  English,  and  with  insular  prejudices 
as  to  the  high  character  of  the  English  tropical  and  Crown  colonies. 
They  judge  the  success  of  our  very  short  experiments  in  the  Philip- 
pines by  a rigid  comparison  with  the  governments  established  by 
England  in  India,  in  the  Strait  settlements,  in  China,  and  elsewhere, 
some  for  hundreds  of  years,  others  for  fifty  years,  and  all  for  many 
years  longer  than  those  of  the  American  regime  in  the  Philippine 
Islands.  They  compare  them,  too,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Eng- 
lish purpose  in  making  the  colony,  which  is  to  give  it  a permanent, 
good,  but  arbitrary  and  non-popular  government,  and  in  which  there 
is  wholly  lacking  intention  to  prepare  the  people  of  the  country  gov- 
erned to  govern  themselves. 

I have  referred  to  education.  I may  say  specifically  with 
respect  to  the  Philippine  Islands  that  the  establishment  of  English 
schools  has  led  to  a school  system  in  which  today  there  are  three 
hundred  thousand  Philippine  boys  and  girls  reading,  writing  and 
reciting  in  the  English  language,  and  we  feel  that  we  could  not  con- 
fer a greater  benefit  upon  those  islands  than  to  produce  nationality 
and  solidarity  of  the  people  by  giving  them  a common  language,  and 
that  language,  the  business  language  of  the  Orient,  and  the  language 
the  world  over  of  freedom  and  free  institutions.  The  recent  Con- 
gress has  given  authority  to  guarantee  the  interest  on  bonds  issued 
for  the  construction  of  railways,  and  as  I left  Washington  we  had 
just  issued  an  invitation  for  bids  for  franchises,  which  we  hope  will 
lead  in  the  course  of  five  years  to  the  construction  of  a thousand 
miles  of  Philippine  railways.  If  that  happens,  as  we  hope  it  may, 
there  will  be  a material  development  and  increase  in  the  export 


15 


wealth  of  the  islands  that  will  startle  even  the  imaginative  Filipinos. 
The  marvel  in  respect  to  the  islands  and  the  reason  why  the  business 
in  them  has  been  so  retarded,  is  the  lack  of  inter-communication 
and  inter-transportation.  In  a population  of  eight  millions  of  peo- 
ple, with  an  area  of  140,000  square  miles,  until  the  Americans 
reached  the  islands,  the  mileage  of  railway  in  the  islands  had  not 
exceeded  120  miles.  Even  in  a tropical  country  settled  by  a sim- 
ple agricultural  people,  this  is  a percentage  of  railway  mileage  far 
below  any  other  country  in  the  world  similarly  situated. 

We  have  given  to  the  Philippines  a currency  as  stable  as  gold. 
We  have  taken  out  of  the  business  of  the  islands  the  element  of 
gambling,  the  variations  in  the  value  of  the  silver  standard  neces- 
sarily engendered.  We  are  improving  the  large  harbors  of  the 
islands  with  extensive  walls  and  breakwater,  and  we  are  doing  what 
we  can  against  the  obstacles  of  torrential  rains,  and  an  absence  of 
good  material  to  construct  wagon  roads  between  the  provinces.  We 
have  had  to  change  the  systems  of  taxation,  and  perhaps  by  too 
radical  measures,  have  at  times  aroused  considerable  hostility  on 
the  part  of  numbers  of  the  people.  But  as  the  years  go  on,  as  the 
benefits  of  the  government  gradually  manifest  themselves,  I feel 
confident  that  while  we  may  not  retain  the  constant  gratitude  of 
the  people,  for  that  is  an  elusive  thing,  most  difficult  permanently 
to  hold,  we  shall  make  it  evident  to  their  reason  that  we  are  doing 
everything  possible  to  promote  their  prosperity  and  to  teach  them 
the  art  of  self-government. 

These,  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippines,  are  the  burdens  which 
we  have  assumed,  due  to  the  Spanish  war.  I do  not  for  a moment 
contend  that  now  or  for  years  they  will  prove  anything  but  a bur- 
den to  the  United  States.  But  they  have  been  forced  upon  us 
against  our  will  as  trusts  to  be  administered  and  we  should  be  recre- 
ant to  our  high  duties  as  a nation  if  we  failed  to  meet  the  obligation. 
It  is  true  that  we  have  often,  in  times  past,  enjoyed  a bit  of  Phara- 
saical  pride  in  pointing  out  how  much  better  we  were  than  other 
people  because  we  had  a country  homogenous  throughout,  in  which 
all  could  take  part  in  the  government,  all  share  the  benefit  of  con- 
stitutional liberty  and  all  enjoy  the  equal  opportunities  of  American 
citizens,  and  that  thus  we  were  better  than  the  English,  better  than 
the  French,  better  than  the  Germans,  who  were  continually  taking 
over  conquered  peoples  and  governing  them  against  their  will.  This 

16 


was  a somewhat  indefensible  and  selfish  position  for  us  to  occupy, 
because  while  the  happy  condition  of  our  own  people  was  as  stated, 
we  failed  to  note  that  the  progress  in  civilization  in  the  world  would 
have  been  delayed  centuries,  without  colonization,  without  the 
alien  government  of  conquered  people  and  without  the  institution 
of  government  in  such  colonies  of  a character  far  better  than  that 
of  which  the  people  governed  were  capable  of  themselves  maintain- 
ing. In  thus  priding  ourselves  upon  not  having  taken  any  part 
in  the  colonization  of  the  world,  we  were  priding  ourselves  on  not 
having  assumed  our  share  of  the  burden  some  nations  had  to 
assum.e,  if  we  were  and  are  to  enjoy  the  trade  and  association  with 
these  great  countries  redeemed  from  barbarism.  Is  it  possible  that 
the  world  is  not  and  should  not  be  grateful  to  the  powers  of  Europe 
now  engaged  in  colonization  of  the  dark  continent  of  Africa?  To 
France  for  what  it  has  done  in  Algiers?  To  England  for  what  it 
has  done  in  the  Soudan  ? Is  it  possible  that  we  should  not  be  grate- 
ful to  England  for  producing  an  empire  of  300,000,000  of  people 
in  which  there  is  peace  from  one  end  to  the  other,  and  nothing  but 
the  cultivation  of  the  arts  of  peace,  of  education,  art,  agriculture 
and  business.  Should  we  swell  with  pride  and  say  that  we  are  not 
as  other  men  are  because  we  do  not  thus  colonize?  We  do  enjoy 
the  benefits  of  the  increasing  civilization  of  the  world  by  reason  of 
colonization  ; must  we  decline  to  assume  the  burden  thereof  ? When 
our  time  came  to  take  up  the  burden,  the  people  of  the  United  States 
declined  to  look  at  the  situation  in  this  way.  They  said  circum- 
stances, fate.  Providence,  what  you  choose  to  call  it,  have  forced 
upon  us  the  duty  of  being  responsible  for  a good  government  in 
Porto  Rico  and  a good  government  in  the  Philippines.  We  believe 
that  ultimately  self-government  is  the  best  government  for  all  peo- 
ple, and  that  all  people  can  be  prepared  by  constant  labor  and  atten- 
tion, ultimately  to  enjoy  the  blessings  of  civil  liberty  and  of  self- 
government.  Hence,  when  an  alien  people  comes  under  our  control, 
w€  deem  it  our  duty  to  try  the  experiment  of  educating  them  to 
govern  themselves,  and  we  should  deem  ourselves  cowards  and 
recreants  if  we  declined  to  accept  the  responsibility  and  thus  throw 
the  people  back  into  a chaos  of  anarchy  which  could  not  but  result 
ultimately  in  self-destruction  or  despotism. 

In  the  last  two  years  we  have  assumed  a responsibility  to  the 
world  of  building  a canal,  which  shall  unite  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans  in  the  middle  of  the  American  continents.  Several  most 


7 


important  questions  remain  to  be  determined  in  respect  to  the  con- 
struction of  the  canal.  Shall  it  be  a lock  canal,  the  highest  portion 
of  which  shall  be  ninety  feet  above  the  level  of  the  two  oceans,  or 
sixty  feet,  or  thirty  feet?  Or  shall  it  be  a sea  level  canal?  At 
mean  tide  the  two  oceans  are  at  exactly  the  same  level,  but  on  the 
Pacific  side  the  distance  between  low  tide  and  high  tide  is  about 
twenty  feet.  On  the  Atlantic  side  this  distance  is  not  more  than 
five, feet,  and  it  has  been  thought  by  many  that  to  avoid  too  great  a 
current  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  a tidal  lock  at  one  end  of  the 
canal.  The  issue,  whether  the  canal  shall  be  made  sixty  feet  or  a 
sea  level  canal,  is  to  be  determined  by  the  answer  to  the  question 
whether  the  advantages  of  a sea  level  canal  including  speed  and 
economy  of  operation  are  worth  the  additional  cost  and  additional 
time  of  construction.  Measurements  and  experiments  made  by  the 
engineers  of  the  present  commission  show  that  previous  estimates 
of  cost  and  time  are  excessive,  and  I sincerely  hope  that  it  will  be 
found  by  the  commission  and  the  consulting  board  that  the  differ- 
ence in  cost  and  in  time  of  construction  will  be  comparatively 
so  small  as  to  make  it  eminently  wise  for  us  to  do  a thorough  job, 
and  dispense  with  the  interference  with  quick  transportation  that 
locks  always  offer.  The  commission  presented  to  Congress  last 
year  through  the  executive,  the  problem  where  it  should  buy  its 
supplies,  with  the  statement  that  under  the  law  as  it  was  it  felt 
obliged  to  buy  its  supplies  where  they  could  be  purchased  most 
cheaply  because  the  work  to  be  done  was  not  within  the  tariff 
wall,  was  not  where  the  law  imposed  duties  according  to  the  Ameri- 
can tariff,  but  in  a foreign  country  in  which  American  citizens  would 
be  justified  in  buying  where  they  could  buy  the  cheapest,  and  in 
which,  therefore,  it  seemed  that  the  executive  of  the  government 
must  seize  the  same  opportunity  unless  expressly  forbidden  by  con- 
gressional enactment.  In  other  words,  an  executive  charged  with 
the  duty  of  building  an  immense  public  work  must,  in  fulfilling  his 
trust,  build  it  as  cheaply  as  possible  unless  otherwise  directed  by 
law. 

The  policy  of  protection  to  American  industries  is  a policy  fav- 
oring the  imposition  of  taxes  upon  goods  imported  into  and  sold 
within  this  country,  so  that  in  the  competition  within  this  country 
between  home  and  foreign-made  goods,  the  tax  shall  give  an  advan- 
tage to  home-made  goods ; but  where  the  goods  are  to  be  used  not 
in  the  country,  but  in  a foreign  place,  it  would  seem  that  the  princi- 

i8 


pie  of  protection  to  home  industries  has  no  application.  But  if  it 
has,  then  it  must  be  enforced  by  law  and  not  by  the  discretion  of  the 
commission. 

The  President  has  reorganized  the  commission  originally 
appointed  and  placed  it  upon  a more  efficient  basis.  The  Panama 
Railroad  Company  which  was  largely  owned  by  the  French  Panama 
Canal  Company  and  which  thus  came  into  the  hands  of  the  United 
States,  has  now  become  the  sole  property  of  the  United  States  by 
the  acquisition  of  the  shares,  twelve  hundred  or  more,  of  the  out- 
standing stock  of  the  railroad,  and  the  policy  of  the  commission  and 
of  the  government  is  to  run  this  railroad  as  a link  between  the  com- 
merce of  the  two  oceans  at  a flat  rate  for  all  persons  without  dis- 
crimination. The  flat  rate  should  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  cost  of 
carriage,  the  interest  on  the  bonded  indebtedness,  and  a fair  return 
for  the  capital  invested  by  the  government.  In  this  way  we  think 
we  can  make  the  railroad  as  free  to  the  commerce  of  the  world  and 
as  helpful,  so  far  at  least  as  rates  are  concerned,  as  if  there  were 
substituted  for  the  railroad,  the  canal  which  we  are  building.  Of 
course  we  acquired  the  railroad  to  assist  us  in  the  construction  of 
the  canal,  but  we  could  not  acquire  it  without  assuming  the  obliga- 
tion of  a common  carrier  between  a point  on  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and 
a point  on  the  Pacific,  and  that  requires  us,  therefore,  to  see  to  it 
that  the  rates  on  the  railroad  are  reasonable  and  further,  that  they 
are  the  same  for  all  ships.  A visit  to  the  Isthmus,  and  consideration 
of  the  enormous  work  to  be  done,  and  a perception  of  how  it  may 
be  done,  all  form  in  the  breast  of  one  who  loves  his  country  and  is 
anxious  to  see  it  useful,  a feeling  of  pride  that  the  United  States  has 
undertaken  this  great  world  work  and  an  honest  desire  that  the  time 
within  which  the  work  shall  be  accomplished  shall  be  short.  For  cer- 
tain it  is  that  the  beneficial  effect  upon  the  commerce  between  the  two 
Americas,  and  between  Europe  and  Asia  and  the  two  Americas 
will  be  so  great  that  future  generations  will  rise  to  call  the  nation 
blessed  which  put  its  shoulder  to  the  task  and  pushed  it  to  comple- 
tion. 

And  now  with  your  permission  I should  like  to  turn  to  a few 
purely  domestic  questions,  with  respect  to  which  the  American  peo- 
ple ought  to  act.  They  are  defects  in  our  present  government  and 
they  are  capable  of  reform,  some  in  one  way  and  some  in  another. 
The  first  crying  evil,  and  I think  the  greatest,  in  our  community,  is 
the  maladministration  of  the  criminal  law.  It  is  a disgrace  to  our 


19 


community.  The  ratio  of  the  number  of  those  convicted  of  man- 
slaughter, murder  in  the  second  degree,  or  murder  in  the  first 
degree,  to  the  number  of  homicides  in  a year  the  country  over,  is  so 
small  as  to  be  startling.  Of  course  the  proportion  varies  in  different 
states,  but  the  number  of  those  who  take  the  lives  of  their  fellow 
men  and  who  escape  punishment  altogether  is  so  great  that  it  is 
no  wonder  that  a man’s  life  is  held  as  cheaply  as  it  is 
in  many  parts  of  this  country.  What  is  true  in  respect  to  homi- 
cides is  true  in  respect  to  almost  all  other  crimes,  although  there 
are  some  which  awaken  the  indignation  and  emotion  of  the  people 
and  so  call  for  prompter  punishment.  The  delays  in  the  law  and 
the  escape  of  so  many  criminals  has  led  directly  and  surely  to  the 
awful  condition  which  prevails  in  so  many  parts  of  this  country,  in 
which  cruel  lynchings  involve  whole  communities  in  criminality.  I 
know  that  there  are  learned  disquisitions  on  the  subject  of  lynchings 
which  are  written  to  show  that  they  have  but  little  to  do  with  the 
failure  of  the  law  to  enforce  punishment,  and  instances  are  given 
where,  though  mobs  have  known  that  punishment  of  crime  was  cer- 
tain, they  nevertheless  have  proceeded  with  their  bloody  work  and 
hurried  their  victims  to  an  illegal  doom,  but  these  instances  only 
show  the  illegal  and  insane  character  of  mobs  after  they  are  formed, 
and  do  not  in  the  slightest  degree  tend  to  prove,  that  had  the  admin- 
istration of  the  law  been  efficient  in  all  cases,  the  temptation  and 
the  tendency  to  form  mobs  at  all  would  not  have  arisen.  The  rea- 
sons for  the  present  failure  efficiently  to  administer  the  criminal  law 
are  three-fold. 

First,  when  the  Constitutions  of  the  States  and  of  the  United 
States  were  framed,  the  English  law  of  crimes  was  a bloody  code 
which  punished  every  felony  with  death  and  provided  capital  pun- 
ishment for  a hundred  different  offenses.  This  had  been  so  since 
the  time  when  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the  contrary,  and 
so  it  was  in  those  dark  days  of  English  history  that  in  a characteris- 
tic manner,  to  meet  the  severities  of  such  a code,  there  arose  and 
were  created  by  the  judges  at  common  law,  certain  technical  rules 
for  the  protection  of  the  accused,  which  greatly  increased  the  diffi- 
culty of  proving  his  guilt,  and  so  materially  reduced  the  number  of 
those  who  were  carried  to  the  gallows  to  answer  for  the  commission 
of  crimes  which  it  was  inhuman  to  visit  with  caprtal  punishment. 
The  weight  of  the  Crown  in  the  old  days  against  the  prisoners  at 
bar,  many  of  whom  were  political,  the  abuses  which  arose  from  the 


power  of  the  Crown  to  remove  judges  and  appoint  others,  and  the 
fear  of  torture  to  secure  confessions,  which  was  a well-founded 
fear  in  the  early  days  of  the  English  kings,  all  tended  to  make 
important  restrictions  for  the  benefit  of  the  accused  in  the  manner 
of  his  trial,  and  these  restrictions  came  to  be  embodied  in  rules  of 
evidence  and  oftentimes,  indeed,  in  constitutional  prohibitions,  that 
last  down  to  the  present  day  and  which,  but  for  their  historical 
importance,  would  probably  never  have  been  inserted  in  a code  of 
criminal  law  prepared  by  a modern  jurist.  In  the  protection  of  the 
individual  from  unjust  conviction  and  punishment,  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  as  now  interpreted,  at  least  in  my  judgment, 
goes  too  far  and  injures  the  cause  and.  rights  of  society  at  large. 
The  provision  that  no  man  shall  be  compelled  to  give  evidence 
against  himself  is  one  which,  when  weighed  in  the  light  of  modern 
conditions,  is  of  doubtful  utility  and  it  has  been  enlarged  and  ampli- 
fied to  a point  where,  in  the  prosecution  of  many  crimes,  it  is  almost 
impossible  except  by  a miracle,  to  secure  the  evidence  tending  to 
convict.  This  is  especially  true  of  that  class  of  cases  like  violations 
of  the  Interstate  Commerce  law  and  the  Anti-Trust  law,  where  both 
parties  to  the  offense  may  avoid  giving  any  evidence  by  disclosure 
of  books  or  otherwise  of  the  business  in  which,  and  by  which,  the 
offense  against  the  law  has  been  committed. 

Constitutional  restrictions  are  difficult  to  amend,  and  therefore 
we  can  hope  to  look  for  no  speedy  remedy  in  respect  to  this  cause 
for  the  delays  and  tardy  administration  of  the  criminal  law.  All 
that  we  can  hope  for  is  that  judges  will  become  more  sensible  of  the 
injury  which  a wide  construction  of  such  restrictions  is  likely  to 
inflict  on  the  body  politic,  and  may  narrow  them  so  that  their  opera- 
tion in  securing  immunity  from  crime  may  be  made  as  small  as  pos- 
sible. 

Second,  we  have  extended  the  right  of  appeal  in  criminal  cases 
much  too  far.  In  England  there  is  no  right  of  appeal  in  criminal 
cases  except  that  of  an  appeal  to  the  Home  Secretary,  who  does  not 
set  aside  a conviction  or  grant  a pardon  unless,  upon  the  merits  it 
ought  to  be  done.  With  us  the  rule  of  law  is  that  if  an  error  be  dis- 
covered in  the  trial  of  the  convicted  person  who  appeals,  and  in 
many  cases  the  trial  lasts  two  or  three  weeks,  the  presumption  is 
that,  the  defendant  was  prejudiced  by  that  error  of  law  in  the  ruling 
of  the  court,  and  the  verdict  must  be  set  aside  unless  the  court  can 
affirmatively  find  that  the  error  was  innocuous  and  harmless.  Now, 


21 


even  if  we  cannot  entrust  the  trial  of  our  criminal  cases  to  the 
courts  of  first  instance,  without  an  appeal,  at  least  it  might  be  pro- 
vided that  in  matters  of  appeal  in  criminal  cases,  the  court  above 
should  not  set  aside  the  judgment  for  any  error  of  law,  if,  after  an 
examination  of  the  evidence,  it  finds  sufficient  evidence  to  convict 
and  cannot  find  affirmatively  that  the  error  which  was  committed 
would  have  changed  the  verdict.  In  this  way  ninety-nine  out  of 
one  hundred  cases  which  are  appealed  and  reversed  would  be 
affirmed  and  the  obstacle  to  efficient  and  prompt  administration 
presented  by  appeals,  at  least,  would  be  avoided. 

A third  reason  for  our  defective  administration  of  justice,  I 
fear  must  be  found  in  the  temper  of  our  people.  They  are  not  as 
strongly  imbued  with  the  necessity  for  the  enforcement  of  law  as 
are  the  Teutonic  peoples  generally.  Their  nature  is  somewhat  more 
volatile.  They  are  much  more  prone  to  forget  and  they  are  more 
affected  by  emotion  when  sitting  in  the  jury  box  than  are  English- 
men. The  disposition  of  the  newspapers,  especially  the  “yellow’' 
journals,  to  make  a hero  out  of  a criminal,  to  create  maudlin  senti- 
ment in  favor  of  a bloody-handed  murderer  or  murderess,  especially 
the  latter,  all  tend  to  a treatment  of  the  cases  presented  with  a mawk- 
ish sentimentality  that  blinds  those  charged  with  responsibility  of 
finding  the  defendant  guilty,  to  their  real  duty.  Another  difficulty 
in  the  state  courts  is  in  our  codes  of  procedure  under  which  the 
power  of  the  trial  judge  to  confine  the  case  to  the  issue  and  to  elim- 
inate from  the  jury  box  the  effect  of  false  and  morbid  eloquence,  of 
hypocritical  acting  by  the  counsel  for  the  defense  is  limited  and 
almost  prohibited.  This  makes  the  trial  of  every  criminal  a game 
in  which  the  counsel  for  the  defense  deem  themselves  justified  in 
doing  anything  to  take  the  minds  of  the  jury  off  the  facts  of  the 
case  and  to  put  them  in  a hypnotized  condition  in  which  they  vote 
as  jurors  for  something  which  they  could  not  approve  as  men.  So 
the  defendant  escapes  amid  the  applause  of  the  gaping  crowd  of 
unhealthy  auditors,  and  every  member  of  the  community  who  has 
any  sense  of  propriety  blushes  at  the  escape  of  another  bloody- 
handed  criminal.  The  power  that  is  given  to  the  judge  in  a federal 
court  and  in  an  English  court,  to  point  out  to  the  jury  the  absurdities 
of  claims  of  counsel  for  the  defense  in  the  travesty  upon  justice 
which  they  are  trying  to  perpetrate,  is  a great  restraint  upon  the 
abuses  to  which  advocacy  in  criminal  cases  has,  in  these  latter  days, 
been  carried.  Amendments  to  the  law  can  do  a great  deal  of  good 


22 


and  perhaps  with  such  amendments  the  forgetfulness  of  a light- 
hearted people  might  not  be  so  injurious. 

A second  abuse  in  our  body  politic  is  that  of  the  increase  in  the 
divorces  granted  by  our  courts.  Last  year  there  were  612  divorces 
out  of  every  10,000  marriages.  If  this  continues  to  grow  what  will 
become  of  that  which  is  today  the  foundation  of  our  civilization  and 
our  state — the  home  and  the  family.  Ought  there  not  be  some  radi- 
cal measures  by  which  to  prevent  the  looseness  with  which  the  mar- 
riage bond  is  tied  and  the  ease  with  which  it  may  be  dissolved. 
There  is  one  radical  remedy  which  I am  sure  would  introduce  a 
change  at  once  and  which  would  largely  reduce  the  evil.  The  ques- 
tion of  marriage  and  divorce  is  a question  of  status.  Now,  cer- 
tainly, we  ought  not  to  have  a condition  of  affairs  in  which  a man 
may  be  in  the  condition  of  a married  man  in  one  state  and  an  unmar- 
ried man  in  another.  His  status  in  that  respect  ought  to  be  the 
same  for  all  the  states.  A variation  of  it,  as  he  crosses  the  state 
line,  is  apt  to  give  rise  not  only  to  his  own  embarrassment  but  also 
to  the  embarrassment  of  his  children  and  in  respect  of  property 
questions,  of  many  more  persons  than  the  man  himself.  When  the 
Constitution  was  framed  the  founders  of  it  thought  that  questions 
of  bankruptcy  ought  to  be  determined  by  the  Congress  or  in  federal 
courts,  or  at  least  they  left  open  to  Congress  an  opportunity  to  estab- 
lish courts  of  bankruptcy  if  it  should  be  deemed  wise.  That  was  on 
exactly  the  same  principle  as  that  upon  which  marriages  and 
divorces  may  well  be  made  the  subject  of  federal  cognizance,  because 
the  declaration  of  bankruptcy  is  the  declaration  of  a status.  It 
would  not  do  for  a man  to  be  a bankrupt  in  one  state  and  not  in 
another.  It  was  wise  that  that  status  should  accompany  him 
whither  he  went.  Now  if  it  were  given  to  Congress  to  pass  uniform 
laws  of  marriage  and  divorce,  we  could  be  certain,  first,  that  the 
majority  in  the  Congress  of  the  Union  would  see  to  it  that  con- 
servative restrictions  upon  the  law  of  divorce  would  be  enacted  and 
that  for  no  light  reason  should  there  be  a separation  of  those  joined 
together  in  matrimony  under  the  law ; and  secondly,  we  could  be 
certain  that,  administered  as  the  divorce  law  would  be,  by  judges 
of  the  federal  courts,  subject  as  they  all  would  be  to  the  general 
supervision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  that  there 
would  be  a uniform  administration  of  the  law  in  the  courts.  The 
rules  laid  down  would  be  rules  approving  themselves  to  the  con- 
servative members  of  the  community.  With  such  a restriction  I 


23 


am  sure  that  the  startling  statistics,  which  as  compared  with  other 
countries  the  divorces  granted  in  this  country  show,  would  be  much 
reduced. 

Finally,  may  I speak  of  another  defect  in  the  policy  of  our  gov- 
ernment, which  it  seems  to  me  calls  for  change  and  remedy.  This 
is  the  policy  of  paying  its  most  important  officials  salaries  which 
are  totally  inadequate.  I omit  reference  to  the  salary  of  the  Presi- 
dent, because  that  is  more  nearly  adequate  than  any  of  the  others  in 
the  State,  and  yet  that  might  properly  be  increased.  But  take  the 
salary  of  the  Vice  President.  The  Vice  President  succeeds  to  the 
presidency  in  case  of  the  death,  disability  or  resignation  of  the 
President.  He  ought  therefore  to  be  of  the  same  class  of  men, 
with  the  same  high  ability  and  broad  statesmanship  as  the  President 
himself.  The  duties  of  the  Vice  President  are  confined  to  presiding 
over  the  Senate.  He  is  prevented  by  custom  at  any  rate,  if  not  by 
law,  from  engaging  in  any  profession  or  occupation.  He  is  the 
second  officer  of  the  State.  It  is  evident  that  he  should  live  as  the 
second  officer  of  the  State  during  the  term  for  which  he  is  elected. 
Tt  is  true  that  he  does  not  discharge  functions  which  involve  great 
labor,  but  he  is  where  he  may  be  called  at  any  moment  to  discharge 
such  functions.  “They  also  serve  who  only  stand  and  wait.”  Is 
it  meet,  is  it  proper,  that  the  Vice  President  of  a nation  of  eighty 
millions  of  people  should  be  compelled  to  give  up  all  means  of  liveli- 
hood, all  means  of  properly  maintaining  an  establishment  fitting  for 
the  second  officer  of  the  State,  and  receive  only  the  small  salary  of 
$8,000?  The  enormous  material  growth  of  business  and  increase 
of  wealth  has  so  increased  the  scale  of  living  as  largely  to  increase 
the  living  wage  for  an  official  occupying  a prominent  position  under 
the  Government.  So  great  has  this  increase  become  that  it  is  now 
practically  impossible  for  a Congressman  or  a Senator  having  a 
family  to  keep  house  in  Washngton  on  the  scale  of  living  which 
he  ought  to  maintain,  for  less  than  double  his  salary.  The  judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  a court  which  we  like  to 
call  and,  believe  to  be  the  greatest  tribunal  in  the  world,  receive 
$12,500,  and  the  Chief  Justice,  $13,000.  Now,  I speak  whereof  I 
know  when  I say  that  every  one  of  those  judges  finds  it  to  be  of  the 
utmost  difficulty  to  live  in  Washington  at  the  rate  and  upon  the 
scale  that  a judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  ought 
to  live  upon,  with  the  salary  which  is  paid  him.  Many  of  them  are 
unable  to  have  horses  and  carriage  and  none  of  them  who  maintain 


24 


any  sort  of  an  establishment  are  able  to  live  within  their  income. 
Now,  certainly,  this  ought  not  to  be.  Even  in  the  State  of  New 
York  they  pay  a judge  of  First  Instance,  called  the  “Supreme  Court” 
judges,  but  they  are  like  our  Common  Pleas  judges,  $17,500.  In 
England  they  pay  the  Lord  Chancellor  $50,000,  the  Lord  Chief 
justice  $40,000  and  their  ordinary  judges  $25,000.  Why  is  it  that 
a country  richer  than  England,  with  a court  that  certainly  stands 
as  high  as  any  in  England,  should  begrudge  to  its  greatest  jurists 
and  lawyers  a sum  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  live  decently?  Con- 
sider that  these  judges  dispose  each  year  of  400  cases,  and  that  in  a 
number  of  those  cases  counsel  who  do  not  stand  as  high  at  the  bar 
and  have  not  the  knowledge  of  the  law  which  the  judges  on  the 
bench  have,  receive  more  in  a single  case  as  a fee  than  each  judge 
receives  for  his  entire  annual  salary.  Then  take  our  ambassadors 
and  ministers  abroad.  The  highest  salary  paid  to  any  one  of  them 
is  $17,500.  In  many  instances  they  cannot  rent  houses  for  the  sal- 
aries which  are  paid  them,  and  all.  the  other  expenses  of  living  in 
representation  of  this  government  must  be  paid  out  of  the  pockets  of 
the  ambassadors,for  the  privilege  of  holding  the  office.  Every  civil- 
ized nation  except  the  United  States,  of  any  standing  whatever, 
furnishes  in  all  the  large  countries  to  which  its  ambassadors  and 
ministers  are  accredited,  handsome  houses  where  the  extra  terri- 
torial hospitality  of  the  nation  may  be  fittingly  and  suitably  dis- 
pensed. Not  only  are  ambassadors  of  England,  Germany,  France 
and  Russia  paid  from  $30,000  to  $50,000  a year,  but  they  are  all  given 
houses  completely  equipped,  with  a large  entertainment  fund,  which 
enables  them  when  they  retire  from  office  to  feel  that  they  have  not 
spent  a fortune  in  the  service  of  their  government.  And  then  I 
could  give  you  out  of  my  personal  experience  the  lot  of  a cabinet 
officer.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  for  a cabinet  officer  to  live  in  any 
kind  of  a house  in  Washington  and  maintain  himself  respectably 
upon  a salary  of  $8,000,  which  is  paid  him.  When  I was  Governor 
of  the  Philippine  Islands  I received  a salary  of  $20,000  a year. 
That  was  because  it  was  fixed  by  President  McKinley  and  not  by 
Congress.  When  the  question  came  up  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  Philippine  Islands,  the  only  method  by  which  that  salary  was 
continued  at  $20,000  was  not  to  mention  the  salary  in  the  act  at 
all,  and  so  it  continued  just  as  it  had  been.  Out  of  $20,000  I was 
able  to  save  perhaps  $1,000  a year  although  I was  allowed  a house 
to  live  in  without  rent.  I do  not  exaggerate  when  I say  it  costs 


25 


every  cabinet  officer  double  and  sometimes  treble  the  salary  which 
the  United  States  pays  him.  Now  ought  this  to  be  so?  Of  course 
the  flippant  and  the  easy  answer  is  “If  you  do  not  like  your  position 
you  may  resign.”  But  is  that  an  answer?  It  may  be  for  the  indi- 
vidual and  it  may  be  that  for  certain  individuals  in  office  any  salary 
is  more  than  they  earn.  But  we  are  a rich  nation,  and  are  entitled 
to  attract  to  the  public  service  as  able  and  competent  men  as  the 
richest  corporations  of  this  country  and  the  richest  governments  of 
Europe.  We  are  a democracy.  We  proceed  on  the  theory  that 
every  respectable  citizen,  qualified  by  ability  and  learning  to  fill  a 
national  office,  may  fill  it,  but  if  you  are  going  to  pay  salaries  which 
do  not  defer  one-half  of  the  expense  of  living  while  the  office  is  being 
filled,  then  you  limit  those  who  are  eligible  to  the  higher  offices 
in  your  republic  to  the  wealthy  men.  Could  anything  be  more 
absurd  for  a republic  than  to  pursue  a policy  which  shall  deprive  all 
the  poor  men,  or  men  of  moderate  means,  of  any  chance  for  public 
office  or  of  any  desire  to  fill  them?  Is  it  not  the  irony  of  inconsis- 
tency that  we  who  are  engaged  in  praising  the  purity  and  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  democracy  should  adopt  a policy  by  which  only  mil- 
lionaires can  govern  us?  It  is  the  theory  that  the  people  favor  low 
salaries.  I think  it  is  ^ theory  not  well  founded,  and  that  when  the 
proposition  is  explained  to  the  people,  the  people  will  favor  the 
proposition  that  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire  and  that  his  hire 
ought  to  be  a salary  equal  to  that  which  will  maintain  him  decently 
and  respectably  in  the  position  which  he  is  expected  to  fill. 

I have  imposed  upon  your  patience  by  reviewing  a number 
of  the  important  issues  of  the  day.  There  are  others  which  I should 
like  to  dwell  upon,  but  which  time  does  not  permit  me  even  to  touch. 
All  in  closing  that  I feel  justified  in  saying  is,  that  we  have  a great 
country,  with  wonderful  opportunities  for  doing  good  the  world 
over,  and  that  the  greater  our  opportunities  the  greater  our  respon- 
sibilities. I can  never  conceive  of  a time  when  the  American  spirit 
will  not  welcome  additional  opportunities  and  will  not  rise  to  meet 
additional  responsibilites. 


26 


